Not exactly the same but they’ll share a set of common elements that will be the same in these two cases and I haven’t heard of anything distinctly different here. It comes down to the determining if statements are defamatory and evidence that shows the truth or falsity of those statements. Heard at least could testify that she witnessed Depp engaging in the bad behavior she claimed even though she wasn’t found to be credible. Carlsen even can’t do that. He doesn’t say he witnessed any cheating, only that he thinks his sooper-dooper chess brain can’t be beaten at the game so Niemann must have cheated. Just more proof that chess playing ability is not a good indicator of intellectual capacity.
I know how to play chess and that’s about my level (I do play with my wife semi-regularly), but trying to follow this thread with names thrown about, first name, last name, first name…and within the same post makes it hard to follow. But it is an interesting story and I continue to read. I wish people would stick to last names only. I’m guilty of the same thing when talking about baseball. 
That’s actually a pretty huge distinction between the cases, and is why I don’t think the Depp/Herd case is relevant. If Herd said, “Johnny Depp punched me in the face on such-and-such a date,” and that’s proven to be not true, that means Herd lied. If Carlsen says, “Niemann couldn’t have beaten me in that match without cheating,” and it can be proved that Niemann didn’t cheat, that doesn’t prove Carlsen lied, it just means he was wrong. Being wrong about someone breaking the law is very different from lying about someone breaking the law. It’s also a much less strong claim - Carlsen is saying that he thinks Niemann is cheating, but admits he can’t prove it. Having a bad opinion about someone isn’t the same as libeling them. On top of that, Niemann has admitted to cheating in other chess tournaments in the recent past. It’s going to be hard to demonstrate how much damage to Niemann’s reputation is due to the unproven accusation of cheating, and how much by the admitted cheating he did not very long ago. Figuring out specific damages strikes me as difficult, as well. Future earnings would be based on his ability to win prize money in tournaments - which he was by no means guaranteed to win.
Niemann winning a libel suit here seems like a long shot. But, again, IANAL, so maybe I’m wrong about all of that.
Sorry if I missed it, but how exactly is Niemann supposed to have cheated? And how did Carlson tell after a single move?
No concrete manner of cheating has been alleged (I mean, somebody jokingly or maybe not so jokingly suggested anal beads in a streamer’s chat). The basic idea is that a confederate surreptitiously communicates computer engine moves to the cheater. At the grandmaster level, according to chess experts, only three or four computer moves at crucial junctions are necessary to create a strong advantage, so it’s not like an intelligent cheater would follow engine lines the whole game.
Carlsen did not suspect cheating after a single move. That game and quick resignation was a protest/statement for the cheating he suspected in the previous tournament.
Spoke with my in-house business law professor (sometimes it comes in handy to have one of those!). She says it sounds like Riemann has a pretty good prima facie case of libel against Carlsson. If Riemann brings a libel action, the burden of proof shifts to Carlsson to prove that Riemann DID cheat. (Libel is unusual in such shifting of the burden.)
Could get interesting.
Will also be interesting to see how Riemann performs in future tourneys to support/contradict his current rating, or what tournaments/opponents require to try to prevent cheating (anal probes, anyone?)
To be fair, I don’t think he claimed that.
Here is what he claimed in his statement:
-
Niemann has cheated in the past online. This has been publicly admitted to by Niemann.
-
Carlsen believes Niemann has cheated more recently than that and is not being honest about it. This is likely backed up by Chess.com data or other tangible proof, or the claim wouldn’t have been made. This would be the nut of any libel case, and I think Carlsen knows he is on solid ground factually here.
-
Carlsen believes that Niemann acted oddly during and after the match in St. Louis. This seems rather easy to prove, and not particularly germane anyway.
-
Carlsen states that very few players can beat him comfortably with the black pieces. This is the one part that I find suspect, since any player, even Magnus Carlsen, can play poorly (which he clearly did in this match). Losing to a lower-rated player is not evidence of cheating. But the factual claim here is still probably defensible in that very few lower-rated players have beaten Carlsen in classical chess with the black pieces. I believe the last one was 2020 when Aronian beat him (Magnus Carlsen vs Levon Aronian (2020)). Before that I think it was 2017 or something like that.
-
Carlsen states that this combination of facts makes him not want to play against Niemann any more, and that the “chess world” should take a tougher stand against known cheaters, whether online or OTB.
And more fundamentally, I can’t see how it is libelous to say “X has admitted to cheating in the past, they are still performing at a level much higher than they have recently, so I refuse to play against them”. Sure, the implication is that they are still cheating, but I don’t see how it’s “maliciously harmful” or “deliberately false” (depending on which standards apply).
The part that is sketchy from Carlsen is that he only came out this strongly after he lost. Much better would have been to refuse to play as soon as Niemann was added to the tournament. But I am somewhat sympathetic to the claim that the late substitution gave him little time to react and make an informed decision.
What country are you in? My understanding is that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff in the United States. For example,
Of course, there’s no reason to think that US law would apply here. What jurisdiction would hold for Carlson’s statement?
The black and white pictures remind me of the “Disappointed New Wave parents” meme.
US - IL.
My wife was of the clear opinion that the burden of proof shifted in such cases. Which might be a technical distinction from what you cite. But I really do not know, and she could certainly be incorrect. Heck, her judgment was poor enough that she married me! 
She did say it was a great example and that her class would love it, as she doesn’t get enough opportunities to refer to vibrating anal beads when lecturing on business law.
IIRC, though, his earlier cheating was just in casual online games against random strangers, not in formal tournament settings with money on the line.
I mean, I’m certainly not raising myself above a practicing attorney–all I know is from reading shit online. But I’d always understood that US law places the burden of proof on the plaintiff for proving that the statement was false, whereas other jurisdictions (the UK, maybe?) place the burden on the defendant to prove the statement was true. If I’m wrong, I’d love to know.
Seems like Carlsen’s main evidence that Nieman cheated against him was just that, in Carlsen’s opinion, Nieman didn’t seem as nervous as most people are when they’re playing him.
Since there’s no way it can be proven that Carlsen didn’t hold that opinion, and it’s going to be an uphill struggle to argue that Carlsen isn’t sufficiently experienced to have an informed opinion on the issue, I don’t see a libel case going anywhere. Despite this I think it’s unlikely Nieman cheated.
How exactly did that work (the shoe device, which I guess would be similar to the hypothetical anal beads)? Did it just vibrate? Were the messages in Morse code or something? Seems like that would be awfully complicated.
Well, Niemann is American and the statement is referring to a tournament that took place in America. I imagine if Niemann did sue it would be in an American court.
Again, I’m not an expert–but doesn’t the lawsuit generally happen in the jurisdiction where the misdeed occurred? That is, wouldn’t Carlson be sued either in the location where he was when he issued the statement, or possibliy in the location where his publisher was located?
I don’t think this is correct. I believe the cheating at 12 was in a Titled Tuesday tournament online.
That is what Niemann has admitted to. But Chess.com disagrees with that assessment, and in their statement said:
That doesn’t necessarily mean he cheated in formal events more recently, but it certainly implies that it wasn’t as benign as Niemann has claimed. And even his admission includes tournaments for money (although 7 years ago).
And, of course, Carlsen’s claims don’t rely on the cheating being in “serious” events. They merely rely on him cheating more recently than he admitted and that he doesn’t want to play with a known and (apparently) dishonest cheater.
I can’t say how the burden of proof shifts to the defense in a defamation suit in a legal sense but it’s obvious that absolutely proving a statement is false would often be impossible. It is much easier to demonstrate the disregard for the truth by a defendant who offers no evidence for their assertion. If Carlsen takes the stand in a trial he’ll be asked if he witnessed any cheating or if anyone else did. His dissembling nonsense about past cheating and odd behavior will eventually end up with the judge ordering him to answer the yes or no question. I think that should end the trial then and there. Niemann doesn’t have to prove the charges false after Carlsen has admitted he fabricated his defamatory statements.
That is NOT the definition of reckless disregard for the truth under American law. It has nothing to with whether you are in possession of proof. It is acting as if you don’t care whether it’s true or not.
In order to understand the context of these comments I would need to know whether your comments are based in specific qualifications, experience, or expertise. Would you be willing to disclose such information?